Castanet

It's a law that is set up for abuse just by the way it is written. The scenario posted is going to happen. It is only a matter of time.

Peoples lives will be negatively impacted by this and guilt is a non factor. It really is guilty until proven.

There's an updated news item here:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=80776&p=2438131#p2438131

What authority do police have if they show up at my door to demand a breath test and I don't answer or open the door?

countmeout wrote:I see this is absolute trust in the police for probably stemming from never having a poor encounter with one.

That wouldn't be true but, in all fairness, the more I read the less I'm in favour. I can only hope the police use discretion except if someone complains they have to attend.

Fancy wrote:

He described a scenario in which someone has gone home and watches a hockey game, enjoys a few beers, and gets a knock on the door from police, who received a tip about someone in the house who was driving a vehicle suspiciously.

“The person answers the door and they say, ‘Sir, we’ve had a complaint about your driving, we need you to provide a sample,” said Neuberger, noting if the person failed to provide the sample it would likely lead to arrest.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4832762/impa ... h-samples/

Good link fancy. I took this out of the link you provided.

“Mandatory alcohol screening only applies at the roadside, nowhere else. The law is clear on that,” said David Taylor, director of communications for the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.
Mandatory only at roadside. So if requested at your door that is not roadside, is a warrent then needed?
“The ‘two-hour’ rule in the new impaired driving laws was put in place to limit the use of certain defences in drunk driving cases,” Taylor said in a written statement.
Makes sense. Defence lawyers are greasy and have gotten drunk drivers off charges on technicalities
“It is also used in at least 16 US States and has been upheld by their courts. In order to seek a breath sample after a driver is no longer behind the wheel, a police officer would require reasonable grounds to believe that person was impaired while they were driving.”
So what is considered reasonable grounds? Is an annoymous phone call stating *insert name, vehicle description, licence plate* was driving erradically enough?
I could see if the phone call says vehicle driving erradically, side swiped parked car etc. Then police attend to see damage on the vehicle in the driveway. BOOM, reasonable grounds, test the driver

What Do they say when they pull you over ?
License andRegistration please, Dont worry about Your Rights....
You don't have all the Rights as the rest of Canada, You are in B.C. !

soupy wrote:“The ‘two-hour’ rule in the new impaired driving laws was put in place to limit the use of certain defences in drunk driving cases,”

Seems to me I recall reading an article sometime ago about a fella that had been drinking, got into an accident right by his house. So he went in grabbed some beers and a bottle of hard liquor and started chugging saying how upset he was by the crash and needed to calm himself down. Went on to claim the positive breathalyzer was due to these drinks. I think witnesses from the bar came forward and he was found guilty of impaired driving.

Looks like this loophole is trying to be closed but needs some further work.

Bpeep wrote:What authority do police have if they show up at my door to demand a breath test and I don't answer or open the door?

Taken from a news article.

“Mandatory alcohol screening only applies at the roadside, nowhere else. The law is clear on that,” said David Taylor, director of communications for the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.
So does this mean at the front door they would require some sort of warrent? This is not roadside
“The ‘two-hour’ rule in the new impaired driving laws was put in place to limit the use of certain defences in drunk driving cases,” Taylor said in a written statement.

“It is also used in at least 16 US States and has been upheld by their courts. In order to seek a breath sample after a driver is no longer behind the wheel, a police officer would require reasonable grounds to believe that person was impaired while they were driving.”
What is reasonable grounds? Annonymous phone call reporting a vehicle operating swerving?
I could see a report of a vehicle swerving into a parked car, continuing on and then upon finding a car with damage would be reasonable grounds.

So someone calls to say "vehicle plated XXX-YYY swerving all over the road". Driver already parked vehicle in garage. Police show up at the doorstep. Are they able to search the garage to see if the vehicle is there?

Steve-O wrote:

soupy wrote:“The ‘two-hour’ rule in the new impaired driving laws was put in place to limit the use of certain defences in drunk driving cases,”

Seems to me I recall reading an article sometime ago about a fella that had been drinking, got into an accident right by his house. So he went in grabbed some beers and a bottle of hard liquor and started chugging saying how upset he was by the crash and needed to calm himself down. Went on to claim the positive breathalyzer was due to these drinks. I think witnesses from the bar came forward and he was found guilty of impaired driving.

Looks like this loophole is trying to be closed but needs some further work.

Monty Robinson did that, after he killed a motorcyclist.
In case the name is not familiar, he was part of the team that settled down Mr Dezanzki.

Some of you may remember a well known local lawyer doing that also, moments after being in a vehicle collision.
Right in the middle of an intersection on spall road.
Lol.

60-YEARS-in-Ktown wrote:
Monty Robinson did that, after he killed a motorcyclist.
In case the name is not familiar, he was part of the team that settled down Mr Dezanzki.

Anther fine example of the police overstepping their "authority", and then try to cover it up on top of it. Anyone that thinks cops (some not all) aren't going to power-trip with these new drinking & driving laws are living in a dream world. It'll happen, sooner or later...

Bpeep wrote:What authority do police have if they show up at my door to demand a breath test and I don't answer or open the door?

Wait for it. The police will be given powers to blow down your door on the suspicion that you are cowering inside, behind the sofa.

Bpeep wrote:Some of you may remember a well known local lawyer doing that also, moments after being in a vehicle collision.
Right in the middle of an intersection on spall road.
Lol.

Sure do, initials HB I believe, hit the retaining wall at the KG & CC, he was well versed in the drinking and driving laws of the day and managed to finagle his way out it

The "last drink" defence still on lawyers' web pages will need to be updated.

dont hold your breath